Does reasoning training improve fluid reasoning and academic achievement for children and adolescents? A systematic review

IF 3.4 Q2 NEUROSCIENCES Trends in Neuroscience and Education Pub Date : 2021-06-01 DOI:10.1016/j.tine.2021.100153
Julia M. Guerin , Shari L. Wade , Quintino R. Mano
{"title":"Does reasoning training improve fluid reasoning and academic achievement for children and adolescents? A systematic review","authors":"Julia M. Guerin ,&nbsp;Shari L. Wade ,&nbsp;Quintino R. Mano","doi":"10.1016/j.tine.2021.100153","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>BACKGROUND</h3><p>Studies of children and adolescents suggest that reasoning training may improve both reasoning and academic achievement, but evidence and systematic evaluation of this research is limited. Accordingly, this paper provides a systematic review of the literature on reasoning training in order to describe current methods and evaluate their efficacy.</p></div><div><h3>METHOD</h3><p>A systematic search identified eleven articles—published between 1996 and 2016—that reported findings from thirteen separate studies of reasoning training effects on fluid reasoning (G<em>f</em>) and academic achievement in children and adolescents. Specific G<em>f</em><span> outcomes examined were analogical, deductive, inductive, nonverbal, and/or relational reasoning ability. Specific academic achievement outcomes examined were math and reading achievement. This paper reviewed studies utilizing both computerized and non-computerized methods of G</span><em>f</em> training.</p></div><div><h3>FINDINGS</h3><p>Findings from the review show that reasoning training improves G<em>f</em> (near transfer effects). Although less conclusive, when considered on balance, evidence suggests that reasoning training also improves academic achievement (far transfer effects).</p></div><div><h3>CONCLUSIONS</h3><p>Research is needed to parameterize the effects of G<em>f</em> training on academic achievement, and in particular to identify moderators of training efficacy on academic outcomes. Limitations and directions for future research are discussed.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46228,"journal":{"name":"Trends in Neuroscience and Education","volume":"23 ","pages":"Article 100153"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.tine.2021.100153","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trends in Neuroscience and Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211949321000053","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Studies of children and adolescents suggest that reasoning training may improve both reasoning and academic achievement, but evidence and systematic evaluation of this research is limited. Accordingly, this paper provides a systematic review of the literature on reasoning training in order to describe current methods and evaluate their efficacy.

METHOD

A systematic search identified eleven articles—published between 1996 and 2016—that reported findings from thirteen separate studies of reasoning training effects on fluid reasoning (Gf) and academic achievement in children and adolescents. Specific Gf outcomes examined were analogical, deductive, inductive, nonverbal, and/or relational reasoning ability. Specific academic achievement outcomes examined were math and reading achievement. This paper reviewed studies utilizing both computerized and non-computerized methods of Gf training.

FINDINGS

Findings from the review show that reasoning training improves Gf (near transfer effects). Although less conclusive, when considered on balance, evidence suggests that reasoning training also improves academic achievement (far transfer effects).

CONCLUSIONS

Research is needed to parameterize the effects of Gf training on academic achievement, and in particular to identify moderators of training efficacy on academic outcomes. Limitations and directions for future research are discussed.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
推理训练能提高儿童和青少年的流动推理能力和学习成绩吗?系统回顾
对儿童和青少年的研究表明,推理训练可以提高推理和学习成绩,但证据和系统的评价这一研究是有限的。因此,本文对推理训练的文献进行了系统的回顾,以描述当前的方法并评估其有效性。方法:一项系统搜索确定了1996年至2016年间发表的11篇文章,这些文章报告了13项独立研究的结果,这些研究是关于推理训练对儿童和青少年流动推理(Gf)和学习成绩的影响。Gf测试的具体结果包括类比、演绎、归纳、非语言和/或关系推理能力。具体的学业成绩测试结果是数学和阅读成绩。本文综述了利用计算机和非计算机方法进行Gf训练的研究。研究结果:研究结果表明,推理训练提高了Gf(近转移效应)。虽然不太确定,但总的来说,有证据表明推理训练也能提高学业成绩(远迁移效应)。结论Gf训练对学业成绩的影响需要进行参数化研究,特别是需要确定训练效能对学业成绩的调节因子。讨论了今后研究的局限性和方向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
6.10%
发文量
22
审稿时长
65 days
期刊最新文献
Dimensional versus categorical approach: A comparative study of mathematical cognition Translating neuroscience research to practice through grassroots professional learning communities Combining cognitive and affective factors related to mathematical achievement in 4th graders: A psychological network analysis study Neurobiological stress markers in educational research: A systematic review of physiological insights in health science education Applying the science of learning to teacher professional development and back again: Lessons from 3 country contexts
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1